1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Atlantic storm forecast lowered to 7 hurricanes

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Richard King, Aug 3, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    There are some E-Wackos who feel that man made GHG are not only the major contributing factor but some believe it is the only contributing factor. There are some of us who understand that there is a lack of evidence to suport this myth but that we are still collecting information on the entire number of contributing factors to increasing GHG and its resultant effects on the warming trend. I don't think anyone (with a brain)is claiming that because we have fewer Hurricanes _so far_ this season that it disputes the data of GW and increased GHG over the past hundred years.
     
  2. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Unfortunately many of you who "understand" assume that the fact that the matter is not settled means that those who say that global warming is a t least partially a manmade phenomenon have been proven wrong.
     
  3. BobMurdoch

    BobMurdoch Hall Of Fame

    4,009
    0
    Apr 24, 2002
    Mother Nature normally screws up the planet much more effectively than we ever could.... volcanoes, earthquakes, etc. spew more noxious chemicals into delicate ecosystems than we ever could.

    Bottom line, the earth will bounce back just fine. WE might have a problem as the place becomes more problematic in the short term.

    The current warming trend for the north pole and points south into Canada are not the first time that area has been not covered in snow and ice. Core tests show that eons ago it was a much warmer place. Carbon Dioxide was much more plantiful in the atmosphere, hence the greenhouse gases cooked the place pretty effectively in the past. However, a particularly robust plant may be thanked for our current status quo. They've found fossilized remnants of a fern that supposed was highly efficient at converting carbon dioxide to oxygen. So much so that the fern exploded southward, chilling our air to the norms we enjoy today.

    interesting reading at least....

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/31/tech/main1671911.shtml
     
  4. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    You and others have repeated numerous times that the temperature has only gone up 1 degree or less in a century. However, you continue to ignore the fact that the temperature over the ice shelf in Greenland has gone up 20 degrees in less than five years. THAT is significant. It may be a cycle, but its a cycle that could well put much of the coastal areas worldwide under water, NOT over a period of centuries, but in days, when the whole shelf comes sliding into the sea.
     
  5. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    293
    0
    Jul 8, 2006
    [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG][​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG] [​IMG]
     
  6. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Um, nope - this is a common myth based in part on bad info given out by Rush Limbaugh some years ago after the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.

    He repeated the myth when he noted that Mt. St. Helens is Washington's biggest pollutor... true, but sulfur dioxide from it ranges from 50-250 tons a day, about the same as the average 120 tons produced by all the states power plants. However last I checked there aren't as many active volcanoes in the US as there are states that pollute.

    While Pinatubo emitted some 20 or so million tons of sulfur dioxide during its eruption, that is significant only in that its concentrated at one point for a short period of time. The US alone regularly emits a similar amount over a years period.

    Likewise volcanic sources of CO2 are dwarfed by man-made sources by a factor of 150x.

    Likewise, human projects moving earth have changed the landscape more than erosion and earthquates as well.
    Thats kind of the point isn't it? The earth will certainly survive... I don't know of any scientist who says differently. However that doesn't mean it will be hospitable to humanity however, and it won't "bounce back" as long as their is force still pushing it toward a warming trend.
     
  7. GeneralDisarray

    GeneralDisarray Banned User

    293
    0
    Jul 8, 2006
    That is a pretty bold statement since most of the continents of the world were at one time concentrated as one land mass. hehehehehehehe
     
  8. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    Right now the melt off from the surface is running down to the rock under the ice. The melted water is then running under the ice shelf. It is acting as a lubricant between the rock and the ice. The movement is rapidly increasing. Glaciologists who keep track of this ice shelf are very concerned. People who think they know everything aren't. :lol:
     
  9. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    The main problem with all this conjecture is that, well, basically Bob Murdoch is right on target. That the Earth itself can effect cataclismic changes far greater than anything man has been able to do yet. Therefore let's make an assumption that the whole issue of man controlling the weather and the climate is just absurd with our present day technology. The idea that if E-Whackos have their way, we will be able to stop all weather and climate that will be cause for afflicting ones comfort by there standards. I think what the enviromentalist expert scientists are saying is that what man has done in the industrial era is create enough GHG to accelerate the climate change so that the effects of it on our lives will come much sooner than if we had lived/ remained in the stone age and never developed any environmental influencing contribution. Unfortunately, while the idea is nice, I guess by wacko standards, it is ridiculous at the same time. Fact is we have developed technology and have contributed GHG and we know that it does speed up change in certain regions. As I said though how much and how fast is another question no responsible scientists can say yet.

    The humorous conflict in all this is that the climate change to our lifestyles is going to change and this is the nature of Nature.

    Bogy mentions one such possible cataclism and if you look at the history of the planet, that has happened before. Then there is the scary thought about that Volcano on the Island of Hawaii that is predicted to blow and when it does, will probabnly wipe out Honolulu completely with putting in under 200ft of sea water with speeds of a tidal wave traveling faster than the speed of sound. The entire west coast of America is one volcanic hot bed with a TP split right up the center of the country. Sorry, BOgy Iowa will be underwater when that happens. I doubt any of these events being predicted will be stopped by hugging a tree (metaphorically speaking)
    So then the real question is why bother?- I think the answer is pretty simple, It's not the cataclism that we will control, but it's the little comforts that we can control that matter. eg We can make the air we breathe in the metro areas more pleasant. We can reduce the chronic carcinogens from industrial waste. We can stop generating nuclear waste that requires millions of years of management. We can stop the stranglehold of one society over another in the control of our planets resources. We can solve the hunger in the world and in our own backyard. But maybe the powers that be would rather put a few more bucks in their pockets that be concerned about this stuff. After all that's why most of them got into goverenment anyway so why should we expect more from them?
     
  10. Danny R

    Danny R Goblin the Pug DBSTalk Gold Club

    4,885
    0
    Jul 5, 2002
    Not at all... since the continents moved over a period of millions of years. Humans could have done the job a lot faster. But since it wasn't clear to you, I ment humans are moving more earth than nature is CURRENTLY, not over all time.

    http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=1638
     
  11. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    No, actually contrary to popular misunderstanding, California for example will NOT fall into the ocean. If things keep moving the way they are, I will be living on seafront property some day, but it will be because the TP moved far enough east to bring the sea to me. :D
     
  12. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    And there are also groups of "Wackos" who either refuse to recognize the information already collected and/or view it as a sign of Man's arrogance that humans could even be a "contributing factor" and even more arrogant that we are capable of correcting it. Assuming of course there is such a human contribution.

    I put to you. Which is the more dangerous group of "Wackos"? The ones who may be overstating the problem? Or the ones who refuse to acknowledge there even is a problem?
     
  13. Bogy

    Bogy Hall Of Fame

    13,242
    1
    Mar 23, 2002
    AFAIAC, there is good evidence that climate works in cycles. There is good evidence that much of what we see happening right now is part of a natural process. But, there is also good evidence that what humans are doing IS effecting what is happening, even though all it might be is to speed up the process. However, what seems to be very clear is that whatever is causing the changes we are presently seeing, they are occurring, and some of them are occurring rapidly. To close your eyes and wait until it happens seems to be a stupid response as far as I'm concerned. If there is a way for us to slow down the process or minimize it, it would seem prudent to do so. If a bear is about to eat my child, I could just reason that it is a part of the natural process of things. Or maybe it only appears that my child is going to be eaten. Or possibly only a part of my child will be eaten. And of course, it doesn't really concern me, because its only my child, not me. And it may not even happen until sometime in the future. Or I can grab my child and get out of there.
     
  14. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    "I put to you. Which is the more dangerous group of "Wackos"? The ones who may be overstating the problem? Or the ones who refuse to acknowledge there even is a problem?"

    It really doesn't matter as the whole point of arguing either side is ignorant, IMO. I meant ignorant, not arrogant.
     
  15. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    True, but debating whther we could or should do something about it is not ignorant nor arrogant in the least.
     
  16. John W

    John W Icon

    597
    3
    Dec 19, 2005
    Does "since 1936" mean 1936 was hotter?How about 1836?Oh, no records from then.
     
  17. Geronimo

    Geronimo Native American Potentate DBSTalk Gold Club

    8,303
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    The fact that the records don't go that far back to 1836 (only 1850) means that we should discount the data we have? That is as specious as saying that global warning hAS BEEN PROVEN.
     
  18. John W

    John W Icon

    597
    3
    Dec 19, 2005
    The point is-pre-1850-we have NO data.For a planet that is a bit older than that.
     
  19. Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,899
    207
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    I didn't say or even imply that anyone "sisputed" what I said -- I simply said that
    "what some may not realize is that within an overall long-term trend of rising
    temperatures..., blah, blah, blah".

    BTW, I dig it when you talk like Daffy Duck. :lol:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page